Spirituality might be exemplified by this quote.
John 6 ; 63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
One can practice spirituality alone. One cannot practice religiosity without a group/tribe.
Religiosity, I would define roughly, as promoting an organized or local church/temple/tribe etc.
Spirituality ignores our tribal instincts. Our religiosity demand that we cater to our tribal/fellowship needs.
If you are spiritually minded and have a working moral system that you think is the best, I think that you should want to share it and have others follow it. To share it should have you join a church or religion so as to promote your good thinking.
Does a spiritual mind, if truly spiritual, have to join a religion, even if not morally up to your standard, in order to share your view and perhaps help that religion rise up to your better standard of excellence?
If you answer yes to that question, is that why spiritually minded atheists and others now forming atheist churches or churches that take a more secular role within society?
If humans are spiritual beings, then obviously you can explore that aspect of humanity without an institutionalized religion. The world’s animistic religions and some ways of following Buddhism or Hinduism are not codified in the sense one normally thinks of when one thinks of Christianity, Judaism, or Islam. I have never heard anyone argue that you need a codified religion in order to recognize the spiritual component of human nature or to live moral lives. The argument is over whose truth claims are right when it comes absolute right and wrong and relating to God.
If? Do you doubt that we have a spiritual component to our psyche?
For sure. It might even be better if you believe what Jesus and other sages say about praying, which I see as contemplating morality and spirituality, in private.
But when you come to your spiritual insights, is it not a part of your duty to have it known, especially if you belong to a religion that might not be living by the good morals you have discovered?
Indeed. That is why bringing it to a religion is important to both you and the religion as a healthy debate on it would correct the one who is wrong.
No. It was the given in my “if…then” statement.
I don’t understand what this means. Have what known? What does it mean to belong to a religion that doesn’t live by good morals? People live by morals, religions do not.
Bringing what to a religion? Healthy debate on what?
Yes, and you can be religious without being spiritual. Perhaps neither end of the spiritual-religious spectrum is a good place to take up permanent residence.
Religion, religious belief, and religious practice are not synonyms with religiosity. Unless, of course, you are prejudiced toward religious persons. If so, go ahead and say it and get it out of the way.
As far as I’m aware, “atheist churches” are formed for reasons other than discussing spirituality. Mainly, it is about replacing the social functions that churches provide. Humans are social creatures. That is one of the problems with practicing spirituality alone.
I encourage you to do this. Perhaps you will change the religion, or perhaps the religion will change you. I suggest one of the mainline Protestant denominations. It would be less of a culture shock to you than diving into a church with fundamentalist beliefs. Diving into the shallow end is always risky! haha
I dont think you need an organised religion to be spiritual. People who believe in ghosts and think they too will be ghosts dont follow a major religion. (That i know of) but they are spiritual in regards to ghosts.
